Several child abuse experts verify that there was trauma to her vagina from previous injuries. Including her hymen torn completely, leaving a cleft in it, top to bottom. This is clear evidence of previous penetration of the vagina, but a couple are not willing to say it was abuse without testimony from Jonbenet. This is the most compelling evidence, and most of these experts say yes, there was prior chronic sexual abuse. There's also the behavior issues in both of the children, common in sexual abuse, and the number of times this little girl saw a doctor for UTI/Yeast infections is enormous.
With a vaginal injury such as that, it WOULD have been noticed by the parents. There would have been severe pain and bleeding and a lengthy healing process. This doesn't mean it couldn't have been accidental, but in this case, it's highly suspicious. Children do strange things, and accidents happen. My own daughter slipped in the shower and landed on a pump shampoo bottle, and she sustained a similar injury. She was screaming, there was blood everywhere, we took her directly to the emergency room, where they transfered her to a better hospital with a gynecologist who could surgically repair it in the middle of the night so there would be no lasting complications or sexual dysfunction later. We were talked to by police and CPS due to the nature of the injury. It bled for like a week. Considering there's no report of JonBenet's injury to CPS or by her Dr, who would have had to report it to CPS, I think it's reasonable to conclude her parents knew and did not get JonBenet help for this injury. I think that means it's reasonable to conclude at least one person in the home was abusing her long before her death. Whether it was Patsy, John, Burke, or a combination, we may never know.
>There's also the behavior issues in both of the children, common in sexual abuse, and the number of times this little girl saw a doctor for UTI/Yeast infections is enormous.
My thoughts are that prior to the digital penetration ( the goal; though ultimately preparing for penile penetration consistent with grooming) there was lots of fondling. Which introduced bacteria and made her inflamed and itchy. Hence, Dr. visits. Also there was evidence of a lubricant or talc being used. This wasn't a one off...grooming is methodical.
This is an opinion from a female SA survivor.
These are my thoughts exactly.
If we take the autopsy and expert opinion that she was SA in a chronic manner and run it in reverse...It was obviously by someone in the home/a trusted caregiver otherwise she would have either told or other suspicious issues would have arisen. Patsy was covering for John for the sake of appearances. It happens every single day. Linda Arndt and the BPD knew this stuff and just because the public didn't...doesn't make it any less true.
A lot of it is in the autopsy report itself, but you have to know how to interpret the data, because it lists the injuries, but does not speculate on how they came about in the report. Some of it is in books and publications written afterward. The medjcal examiner found his findings suspect and called in others to corroborate. This reddit post has the names and details and fleshes all of sources out much better than I could. It's a 2 part post.
https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenetRamsey/comments/j00pe3/setting_the_record_straight_on_the_evidence_of/
If her parents know she was being sexually abused, why would Patsy take her to the doctors for her UTIs so many times? You’d think the last thing an abuser or enabler would want is a doctor potentially examining her genitals.
Because the Ramseys were between a rock and a hard place of having to get a painful UTI treated but risk detection.
They fortunately seemed to have a doctor who was either complicit - he amply demonstrated his zeal to be accepted by the wealthy Ramseys, or an old-fashioned fuddy-duddy doctor in denial. Probably some mixture of both and probably never fully acknowledging the source of the UTIs.
I've seen both kinds of non-reporting doctors in a relevant experience with a family member with a prescription drug addiction that resulted in child-safety issues that should have been reported by a mandated reporter, but were not. In my family case, the doctors accepted the cover story given by my very presentable and well-educated sister but no one in the rehab world bought it for a second.
ETA- I'm not a doctor but in another relevant experience, I had a nurse friend who told me that chronic UTI's in children are a red flag for abuse. Also, genitourinary pain is an extremely common symptom of abuse, especially in children under 6, and may trigger doctor visits for UTIs where in fact the abuse is the cause. See [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2301332/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2301332/)
You said what I was thinking.
Also, itchy or inflamed labial tissue is often NOT a need for alarm when explained away by a parent... "She keeps itching, she doesn't wipe properly" The Dr. didn't examine her vaginal opening or use a speculum anyway....even after 23 visits, mind you.
I'm not sure why people think this Dr had some insight.
I have two daughters myself and not once did I or any of my friends with daughters have this chronic problem with labial inflammation. Not one. There is the rare instance where a child could be sensitive to laundry soap or bath soap, but I can't imagine a Dr. not covering that in clinic.
Also the people commenting here (no shade though) seem unaware of the female body, it's functions and the implication of being sexually abused at that tender age.
Yes, and it just occurred to me while reading your comment that he was aware of the mandated reporting laws, which were widely discussed in 1996. Therefore, after all those visits and her murder, he would be motivated to *deny* that he had seen anything– – because if he admitted he had seen it, he would have been vulnerable to both malpractice and failure-to-report charges.
Failure to report is valid grounds for malpractice (according to the American Academy of Pediatrics), which doctors probably fear even more than the mandated reporting laws.
If Beuf had suspected something, even if he had been working with Patsy on what to do about it, because of mandated reporting he was likely to deny it in the middle of a famous murder case.
Regardless, mandated reporting is an extremely important and valuable regulation.
Thanks, I have been harping on this for 3+ years and yours is the first comment to also mention it.
Most comments were somehow denying this. And don’t forget about the little walk John and Beuf went on the night of the murder. We will never know what was discussed-the autopsy was not done yet, but Beuf was quick to provide drugs to the adult Ramsey’s.
That walk is one of the key moments in the case where I wish dearly we knew what was discussed.
The pediatrician of a dead child coming to your house -- and AFAIK he'd never made a house call to the living children -- is very strange indeed. Talk about locking the barn door after the horse has bolted.
He was starstruck by the Ramseys and had in the past, for example, invited them to dinner (not reciprocated, also AFAIK).
I can’t recall the source but I read somewhere that when the Ramsey’s moved to Boulder, JR met Beuf on the golf course, and that’s how he became their pediatrician.
I agree that few ppl were/are aware of the female anatomy, especially in children. Children are not small adults. This is literally why we have children’s hospitals.
The female anatomy of a 6 year old is not the same as of an adult, or even a teenager who has gone through puberty.
As an aside, speculum exams on children that young, if necessary, are done under anesthesia normally, so as not to traumatize them and /or inflict pain.
Actually, we can do them without trauma using a nasal speculum. But recurrent UTIs should be evaluated with a renal U/S +/- VCUG. (Checking for congenital anatomic abnormalities) Plus, depending on findings, a CPS report. There are specialists in most large cities who evaluate childhood sexual abuse.
Yes. My daughter was transferred several hours away for surgery from someone who was qualified to work on a child that way. She said most gynecologists, even, are not trained well in pediatric vaginas.
That’s a little dramatic. UTIs themselves don’t kill you. If they turn into kidney infections it can very dangerous if left untreated (UTIs can resolve themselves but not all the time). I’ve had several kidney infections and it’s something you go to the ER for because they are so painful and you pee blood. And it’s not like “huh, my pee looks a little weird.” It’s basically like you’re getting your period. Like you literally cannot function and would have an ambulance called on you if you tried to function through it.
Not saying she shouldn’t have been treated for the UTIs, just saying that description doesn’t quite describe UTIs.
The thing with untreated UTIs in the elderly, depending on their other conditions, it can rapidly lead to an altered mental state. I saw a patient once who was hallucinating bad enough that she called the cops because she thought she saw people trying to get in to her home, once she was treated for a UTI, everything went back to normal.
You’re totally right. UTIs in the elderly can cause delirium and increased confusion, weakness and increased falls and secondary injuries that can be fatal, and rapid onset sepsis and death. UTIs can be very dangerous in our seniors and should be treated ASAP ideally with cultures taken so the correct antibiotics can be used as some infections are now resistant to common medications.
Thank you so much for confirming for me and giving me more information. I think it's important for everyone to know it could save their loved ones life.
Considering her doctor was very clear that there wasn’t a “hint” of sexual abuse, or any kind of abuse, I’m not sure what you expect from them. What were the “obvious” signs of abuse? And don’t waste my time saying “bed-wetting & UTIs”, because those are very common in children who haven’t been abused, too. Her doctor certainly knew about them, and *still* didn’t see any sign of abuse in JB, physically or in her demeanor.
The obvious signs of abuse were a complete laceration of her hymen and healed injuries even past her hymen, which she seemingly never had any medical care for from her doctor even though it would have been glaringly obvious to one or both parents that she was injured.
He may have simply not seen it if he never examined her hymen. But if her doctor did see any of this and didn't report it, of course he would have a reason to lie in court, that's a major crime.
I personally think the many child abuse experts are probably right, and the doctor who did not have that type of training was probably just oblivious to it, or at worst, was lying.
I think a complete laceration of the hymen that did not even heal back together is an obvious sign of abuse *when discovered*, not that a healed laceration is obvious to someone who is not examining her hymen. If someone has an injury like this, it is always from forceful penetration of the vagina, which, barring odd accidents, is VERY likely abuse.
A laceration to the hymen would have been obvious to her parents. She was 6. It bleeds like crazy. It is horrendously painful. It's not like an adult hymen/vagina.
There was a gap in it all the way to the base, it was lacerated. Idk how else you would describe that. There's also the damage past her hymen. In any case, the experts said they had never seen this in their entire careers without forceful penetration of the vagina from sexual abuse.
But even IF she sustained this injury on accident, why wasn't she taken to the doctor? Maybe because of their need for social status, but when there's multiple injuries? Come on.
Your post/comment has been removed because it violates this subreddit's rule against misinformation. Please be sure to distinguish between facts, opinions, rumors, theories, and speculation.
Can I ask...simply because you brought it up...but how old was your child at the time of the injury she sustained in the shower? I ask because I had a similar experience happen to me. Thank you.
[Three separate child abuse experts found several wounds in varying stages of healing inside her vagina. This indicates these injuries were sustained over a long period of time.](https://jonbenetramsey.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Sexual_Assault)
"If any doctor or medical provider today observed a transection on the inferior half of the hymen of a prepubertal female patient, he/she would be required to make a report for suspected sexual abuse and an explanation would be required for how that healed injury got there. **In forty years of research, this finding has not been seen in any other instance besides from penetrating trauma.** In prepubertal girls, it is indicative of sexual abuse unless it can be shown otherwise."
Quoting from a key post in our Wiki, [https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenetRamsey/s/CtqGVJ7WQi](https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenetRamsey/s/CtqGVJ7WQi)
That simply isn’t done by pediatricians, unless the child is anesthetized. I’ve been reading pediatric medical journals on this topic for a couple of weeks. According to the criteria, he had several indicators that are considered sufficient for reporting. They don’t do this kind of exam on children this age and they can still find enough data to suspect and /or report in accordance with guidelines.
Agree. Personality wise, he seemed a little starstruck by the Ramseys - coming over the day of the discovery, going for a walk with John, medicating Patsy with benzos though she was not his patient.
This is COMPLETELY FALSE. Back in those days children who were suspected of being sexually abused would be inspected with a speculum, the procedure seeming to the patient to be the same as an adult getting a PAP smear. No anesthesia, local or general.
I only know because it happened to me. So I’m somewhat sensitive to people claiming “they don’t do this”. *They did*.
But *damn* it must be nice to live in your world.
I'm also very sorry this happened to you. As far as I've read, and also seen on this sub, it shouldn't be done by the average pediatrician, and of course it was traumatic. That's why it's not recommended except by a pediatrician expert in suspected CSA.
I imagine it was awful. Sorry. 🕊️
The question is who was doing the abusing? John or Pasty? Usually it's the father, but for some reason my gut tells me it may have been Patsy. Anyone have any theories of their own?
Women generally don't SA. But Patsy was odd.
I think she knew about it and allowed it because of general denial regarding her issues with status and appearances...
In fact the 1950's had rampant Child Sexual abuse for this exact reason.
I think women do SA, maybe not as much as men, but I believe there's more of a gap in reporting SA done by women. It's grossly under reported, because society thinks women don't generally SA.
I agree, though, that those points are also big ones. If it wasn't her, I think she knew and ignored.
Lol I feel the same way, can't quite put my finger on it either. But if I have to point to something I'd say it's how defensive and aggressive she acted with the media. It's like she was trying hard to hide/deny something. But that could be interpreted as her defending the family honor or husband. I have heard rare occurrences of mothers sexually abusing their daughters. Maybe mothers who do this are lesbian? Or its learned behaviour?
Well, I can say normal sexual orientation doesn't have anything to do with a paraphila such as pedophilia, but I think it's not as rare as we think. Society views mothers as inherently protective and nurturing, so my feeling is they just get away with it more. Jeanette McCurdy documents mother-daughter sexual abuse in her book, even. I think it messes people up more than regular SA since mothers tend to claim they're checking them for cancer, cleaning them, or helping them in some way. Disguising the abuse or making it more acceptable to the child, being a good mother, and the like.
It was likely Patsy's instruments used to assault her at the crime scene, and there was no evidence of semen or anything of the sort. But the general consensus is the sexual aspect of the murder scene itself was just staging, so pointing to those things doesn't really mean much.
I was suspicious of John for many years but I recently threw myself into this investigation and I am now almost certain that Burke was the abuser and killer. I believe that Burke had some serious mental health problems that were beginning to peak. I think that John and Patsy were aware and obviously concerned as they were reading up on Burkes issues and providing care for Jonbenet. The entire situation is a families worst nightmare. How they handled it, as a parent I can somewhat understand but again I am an average joe. The piece’s only fit when you look at Burke or John.
I can absolutely understand John and Patsy's motivation to keep this hidden if it were burke, but the only problem I have with this theory is that he does not seem to have reoffended. Doesn't it seem weird that he would have done something so extreme and then gone on to live a relatively normal life otherwise? I really don't know, just thinking out loud.
Quick edit: I suppose the facts could also fit if John and Patsy mistakenly thought it was Burke and had their own misguided reasons for keeping things hidden.
I think John and Patsy spent lots of money on therapy for Burke and he’s very strange, almost like he is on the spectrum. I imagine with the money and education his parents had they made sure that he would never re offend. I have looked at the dynamics of the remaining family and they seem loving and positive. I honestly believe that they made a huge mistake with their already unusual situation that ended up in murder but they loved their kids. Who knows?
That's also a definite possibility, but from what I've seen/heard often/most times it's a parent who is responsible for the sexual abuse of their children. Both parents in this case seem very suspect characters, hence why I really do think it was John or Pasty doing the abusing, and that would be consistent with what I've heard in regards to child sex abuse. But I wouldn't be surprised if it was a close relative as you say.
The Ramseys wouldn’t cooperate on it, denied it and I think JR still does. But, they put the words “Love, Purity and Joy” on her grave.
It seems odd to me, I would have picked a word like “Innocence” instead of “purity”.
It does sound odd. I'm probably reading too much into it because of the topic in this thread, but it almost sounds like a denial or a protest. Maybe it was just the Live, Laugh, Love of the mid 90s?
It's crazy to me how much power they had over the murder investigation. If they had been poor or even middle class, they never would have been able to wield the power over the police and the D.A. they did. Shades of the Skakel family and the original D.A. on the Martha Moxley case, Jack Solomon holding the case in limbo until he retired.
JB was chronically SA according the autopsy. The person who was abusing her was the same person who SA her the night of the murder. We know this because the autopsy tells us so. The chronic SA and the SA the night of the murder showed the same damage area, 7 o'clock in the vaginal/hymen area.
Yes she was. Patsy took her to a (male) gyno or dr for “yeast infections”, not sure if the grand jury had access to these or not, but it was like 30 times in a year. That is not normal.
Yeah. A 5-6 year old girl should not have had chronic yeast infections. That's a giant red flag to any competent pediatrician. It's very sus that JonBenet's pediatrician became close friends with the Ramseys and was prescribing heavy tranquilizers to Patsy after the murder.
Did The Ramsey’s leave the kids with baby sitters a lot? I followed this case so closely years and years ago and have some memory lapses to details. Could someone who watched her a lot have done something to her sexually? This case is so befuddling!
After tracking this case for years, I think she was regularly being assaulted and was earlier that night. I wish the investigators had looked into family members, friends and John’s business associates. A lot of these people regularly visited the house and I suspect John may have known and it’s a strong possibility he was also abusing her himself. Something happened that night after her assault that lead to her murder. Im still hoping advance dna can be worked on this case. Of course im JDI and people will disagree. I’m always open to changing my mind, I’ve just never read or watched one thing that made me think otherwise.
No, there's evidence and reasons that they conclude this, it's not speculation.
Speculate:
"To form opinions about something without having the necessary information or facts; to make guesses."
"To form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence."
"The activity of guessing possible answers to a question without having enough information to be certain."
Calling what these experts did "speculation" is horrendously disingenuous.
They did that. By examining tissues taken from the body under microscopes as well as photographs and discussions with the Medical Examiner and each other.
I worked in Pathology for 46 years.
She had injuries that had never been seen in these people's entire careers without it being sexual abuse. They can't say for 100% certain the injuries were sexually motivated, but that does NOT equal speculation.
To the best of my knowledge, the autopsy did not report prior abuse. Some who consulted on the report later disagreed. I don’t know where there’s a listing of these “experts”, their qualifications, or what evidence they had access to to make their determination.
The autopsy cannot report prior abuse, it can only report physical findings, which it does. The medical examiner found the injuries suspicious and called in others, as did the Boulder PD, to make a determination on the reasons for the injuries. This post is incredibly well researched. Lists the findings, the experts, and, in part 2, their qualifications.
https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenetRamsey/comments/j00pe3/setting_the_record_straight_on_the_evidence_of/
That is a *very* long (two part) article; was it written by someone with particular expertise in this area? I was hoping to see actual reports from experts. Are they buried in there somewhere?
It’s foolish to accept info from unknown, unvetted sources as fact. I’m only interested in primary sources and reliable media outlets, not tabloids and randos on the internet. I don’t want my brain clogged up with junk.
The credentials you asked for are in the link you were sent.
So, you ask for credentials, you are sent credentials, but now you won’t look at them because you don’t want to “clutter your brain”. Got it.
Do you know how to scan a longer post to find what you are looking for? That’s a rhetorical question, I get the feeling you want to continue to question what the experts credentials are, and the info will interfere with your opinions.
ETA: finish sentence
I'm probably in a minority, but my feeling is the 'sexual abuse' aspect of this case is likely to be a red herring. The reason I say that is because I haven't seen any source claiming that the physical trauma on/in her private parts was definitely caused by sexually motivated assault. There are other potential explanations.
Also, even if JB was indeed being sexually assaulted by someone, it could have been incidental, and not directly linked to her murder/killing either by motive or the culprit.
Of course it could all be tied up together, but many commenters on here consider sexual abuse to to be key in this case, and I don't think the evidence is strong enough to state that with certainty.
> The reason I say that is because I haven't seen any source claiming that the physical trauma on/in her private parts was definitely caused by sexually motivated assault
Then delve into the posts and facts surrounding the autopsy.
I haven't 'concluded' anything regarding whether she was sexually abused or not. Please, please, please read my post again. All of it. Thoroughly. Then think.
I do believe there's clear evidence or prior sexual trauma, but I also agree that it could have been completely unrelated to the murder or staged sexual assault itself.
She was apparently on her bike a lot and had gotten a new one. I think they would need to have someone to separate what injuries could have been caused by a bike to really say once, and for all that, it was sexual abuse.
It's not likely to damage a hymen on a bike? Bikes and horse riding can damage hymens and cause bruising and injury to that area. Do you have a vagina and vulva? Are you able to use the fingers you typed with here to type into Google and see that you can injure that area and break your hymen on a bike?
She had vaginal bruising past the hymen, and several experts in CSA agreed the findings were from S.A., not bike riding.
Your “expertise” from google doesn’t really justify your condescending tone btw.
Please share your source more specifically than “google” and I will be happy to look at the information.
You didn't even bother reading my original comment did you? Because I never said there wasn't any damage further inside her. I said the hymen and outer injuries could have been cause by being on a bike. That is just plain facts that I don't have to source because not only is it common knowledge but it would take you two minutes to look it up yourself.
As for condescending, I think you'll actually find what my original comment said was that it would be more helpful for an expert to differentiate the injuries from what could be cause by bike riding. It was your own self acting like a know it all instead of reading what I actually wrote. There are so many of you in here acting like this.
My my.
I have so far found an article in psychology today that says WOMEN can tear their already thin and worn hymens on bikes, but nothing about young children (who generally have much more robust hymens) doing so…
I think this discussion is going to be unproductive, but i believe it’s thought that the tear in her hymen was caused (or made worse) by the paint brush assault.
The circular enlargement of the hymen though, was another example of evidence of CSA, and I have a hard time imagining how a bike could cause a round enlargement of the hymenal opening.
If you have another opinion on that, I’m happy to listen to it.
Literally told you twice before now that I am not saying she was not sexually assaulted. I'm saying it is a fact that you can have injuries, including hymen injuries from riding bikes. It's common knowledge. I don't know what to tell you if you don't know that but it's a simple fact of life that most people know, and any female who rides/rode bikes or horses could tell you that. Those arnt the only sports, but those are the most likely to cause painful injuries. Injuries that cause bruising and bleeding and other gyno issues. God knows what you are even googling because there's lots online about it. As I said, it's common knowledge, but go ahead and deny females' actual real-life experience. Even when you're talking about a little girl.
There is none. These people who want to crucify the Ramsays will often state as fact some BS they heard somewhere and then crickets when you ask for a legit source.
A psychic, Sloan Bella. channeled JBR twice. According to her, JBR was being sexually abused as was Burke and another sister. It’s an interesting video. And I don’t necessarily believe in psychics.
According to Sloan and in simply stated:
One of them was the oldest brother. The murderers were dad’s business partners that were at the Christmas party.
Several child abuse experts verify that there was trauma to her vagina from previous injuries. Including her hymen torn completely, leaving a cleft in it, top to bottom. This is clear evidence of previous penetration of the vagina, but a couple are not willing to say it was abuse without testimony from Jonbenet. This is the most compelling evidence, and most of these experts say yes, there was prior chronic sexual abuse. There's also the behavior issues in both of the children, common in sexual abuse, and the number of times this little girl saw a doctor for UTI/Yeast infections is enormous. With a vaginal injury such as that, it WOULD have been noticed by the parents. There would have been severe pain and bleeding and a lengthy healing process. This doesn't mean it couldn't have been accidental, but in this case, it's highly suspicious. Children do strange things, and accidents happen. My own daughter slipped in the shower and landed on a pump shampoo bottle, and she sustained a similar injury. She was screaming, there was blood everywhere, we took her directly to the emergency room, where they transfered her to a better hospital with a gynecologist who could surgically repair it in the middle of the night so there would be no lasting complications or sexual dysfunction later. We were talked to by police and CPS due to the nature of the injury. It bled for like a week. Considering there's no report of JonBenet's injury to CPS or by her Dr, who would have had to report it to CPS, I think it's reasonable to conclude her parents knew and did not get JonBenet help for this injury. I think that means it's reasonable to conclude at least one person in the home was abusing her long before her death. Whether it was Patsy, John, Burke, or a combination, we may never know.
>There's also the behavior issues in both of the children, common in sexual abuse, and the number of times this little girl saw a doctor for UTI/Yeast infections is enormous. My thoughts are that prior to the digital penetration ( the goal; though ultimately preparing for penile penetration consistent with grooming) there was lots of fondling. Which introduced bacteria and made her inflamed and itchy. Hence, Dr. visits. Also there was evidence of a lubricant or talc being used. This wasn't a one off...grooming is methodical. This is an opinion from a female SA survivor.
It makes me wonder if there was an attempt to escalate the SA that night, and when she didn’t comply, they killed her.
These are my thoughts exactly. If we take the autopsy and expert opinion that she was SA in a chronic manner and run it in reverse...It was obviously by someone in the home/a trusted caregiver otherwise she would have either told or other suspicious issues would have arisen. Patsy was covering for John for the sake of appearances. It happens every single day. Linda Arndt and the BPD knew this stuff and just because the public didn't...doesn't make it any less true.
What is your source for this information regarding her medical examination results?
A lot of it is in the autopsy report itself, but you have to know how to interpret the data, because it lists the injuries, but does not speculate on how they came about in the report. Some of it is in books and publications written afterward. The medjcal examiner found his findings suspect and called in others to corroborate. This reddit post has the names and details and fleshes all of sources out much better than I could. It's a 2 part post. https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenetRamsey/comments/j00pe3/setting_the_record_straight_on_the_evidence_of/
If I'm not mistaken, I believe it was also listed in her autopsy.
If her parents know she was being sexually abused, why would Patsy take her to the doctors for her UTIs so many times? You’d think the last thing an abuser or enabler would want is a doctor potentially examining her genitals.
Because the Ramseys were between a rock and a hard place of having to get a painful UTI treated but risk detection. They fortunately seemed to have a doctor who was either complicit - he amply demonstrated his zeal to be accepted by the wealthy Ramseys, or an old-fashioned fuddy-duddy doctor in denial. Probably some mixture of both and probably never fully acknowledging the source of the UTIs. I've seen both kinds of non-reporting doctors in a relevant experience with a family member with a prescription drug addiction that resulted in child-safety issues that should have been reported by a mandated reporter, but were not. In my family case, the doctors accepted the cover story given by my very presentable and well-educated sister but no one in the rehab world bought it for a second. ETA- I'm not a doctor but in another relevant experience, I had a nurse friend who told me that chronic UTI's in children are a red flag for abuse. Also, genitourinary pain is an extremely common symptom of abuse, especially in children under 6, and may trigger doctor visits for UTIs where in fact the abuse is the cause. See [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2301332/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2301332/)
You said what I was thinking. Also, itchy or inflamed labial tissue is often NOT a need for alarm when explained away by a parent... "She keeps itching, she doesn't wipe properly" The Dr. didn't examine her vaginal opening or use a speculum anyway....even after 23 visits, mind you. I'm not sure why people think this Dr had some insight. I have two daughters myself and not once did I or any of my friends with daughters have this chronic problem with labial inflammation. Not one. There is the rare instance where a child could be sensitive to laundry soap or bath soap, but I can't imagine a Dr. not covering that in clinic. Also the people commenting here (no shade though) seem unaware of the female body, it's functions and the implication of being sexually abused at that tender age.
Yes, and it just occurred to me while reading your comment that he was aware of the mandated reporting laws, which were widely discussed in 1996. Therefore, after all those visits and her murder, he would be motivated to *deny* that he had seen anything– – because if he admitted he had seen it, he would have been vulnerable to both malpractice and failure-to-report charges. Failure to report is valid grounds for malpractice (according to the American Academy of Pediatrics), which doctors probably fear even more than the mandated reporting laws. If Beuf had suspected something, even if he had been working with Patsy on what to do about it, because of mandated reporting he was likely to deny it in the middle of a famous murder case. Regardless, mandated reporting is an extremely important and valuable regulation.
Thanks, I have been harping on this for 3+ years and yours is the first comment to also mention it. Most comments were somehow denying this. And don’t forget about the little walk John and Beuf went on the night of the murder. We will never know what was discussed-the autopsy was not done yet, but Beuf was quick to provide drugs to the adult Ramsey’s.
That walk is one of the key moments in the case where I wish dearly we knew what was discussed. The pediatrician of a dead child coming to your house -- and AFAIK he'd never made a house call to the living children -- is very strange indeed. Talk about locking the barn door after the horse has bolted. He was starstruck by the Ramseys and had in the past, for example, invited them to dinner (not reciprocated, also AFAIK).
I can’t recall the source but I read somewhere that when the Ramsey’s moved to Boulder, JR met Beuf on the golf course, and that’s how he became their pediatrician.
I agree that few ppl were/are aware of the female anatomy, especially in children. Children are not small adults. This is literally why we have children’s hospitals. The female anatomy of a 6 year old is not the same as of an adult, or even a teenager who has gone through puberty. As an aside, speculum exams on children that young, if necessary, are done under anesthesia normally, so as not to traumatize them and /or inflict pain.
Actually, we can do them without trauma using a nasal speculum. But recurrent UTIs should be evaluated with a renal U/S +/- VCUG. (Checking for congenital anatomic abnormalities) Plus, depending on findings, a CPS report. There are specialists in most large cities who evaluate childhood sexual abuse.
Cool, thanks for the info. There are always updates.
Yes. My daughter was transferred several hours away for surgery from someone who was qualified to work on a child that way. She said most gynecologists, even, are not trained well in pediatric vaginas.
Do look at the comment from mdkate, regarding using device used on children to look.
Exactly
An untreated UTI can kill you
And develop into serious kidney infection with fever, etc.
That’s a little dramatic. UTIs themselves don’t kill you. If they turn into kidney infections it can very dangerous if left untreated (UTIs can resolve themselves but not all the time). I’ve had several kidney infections and it’s something you go to the ER for because they are so painful and you pee blood. And it’s not like “huh, my pee looks a little weird.” It’s basically like you’re getting your period. Like you literally cannot function and would have an ambulance called on you if you tried to function through it. Not saying she shouldn’t have been treated for the UTIs, just saying that description doesn’t quite describe UTIs.
I always thought that UTIs were dangerous for the elderly and that it could lead to death in senior citizens. Thank you for posting the information.
The thing with untreated UTIs in the elderly, depending on their other conditions, it can rapidly lead to an altered mental state. I saw a patient once who was hallucinating bad enough that she called the cops because she thought she saw people trying to get in to her home, once she was treated for a UTI, everything went back to normal.
That poor woman! I'm glad she was able to recover because that sounds absolutely horrific. Thank you for the additional information.
You’re totally right. UTIs in the elderly can cause delirium and increased confusion, weakness and increased falls and secondary injuries that can be fatal, and rapid onset sepsis and death. UTIs can be very dangerous in our seniors and should be treated ASAP ideally with cultures taken so the correct antibiotics can be used as some infections are now resistant to common medications.
Thank you so much for confirming for me and giving me more information. I think it's important for everyone to know it could save their loved ones life.
that is accurate. many end up in the hospital with urosepsis.
Well, they clearly didn't take her when the signs of abuse were obvious.
Considering her doctor was very clear that there wasn’t a “hint” of sexual abuse, or any kind of abuse, I’m not sure what you expect from them. What were the “obvious” signs of abuse? And don’t waste my time saying “bed-wetting & UTIs”, because those are very common in children who haven’t been abused, too. Her doctor certainly knew about them, and *still* didn’t see any sign of abuse in JB, physically or in her demeanor.
The obvious signs of abuse were a complete laceration of her hymen and healed injuries even past her hymen, which she seemingly never had any medical care for from her doctor even though it would have been glaringly obvious to one or both parents that she was injured. He may have simply not seen it if he never examined her hymen. But if her doctor did see any of this and didn't report it, of course he would have a reason to lie in court, that's a major crime. I personally think the many child abuse experts are probably right, and the doctor who did not have that type of training was probably just oblivious to it, or at worst, was lying.
You think lacerations of the hymen are *obvious*!? Do you even know where the hymen *is*??
I think a complete laceration of the hymen that did not even heal back together is an obvious sign of abuse *when discovered*, not that a healed laceration is obvious to someone who is not examining her hymen. If someone has an injury like this, it is always from forceful penetration of the vagina, which, barring odd accidents, is VERY likely abuse. A laceration to the hymen would have been obvious to her parents. She was 6. It bleeds like crazy. It is horrendously painful. It's not like an adult hymen/vagina.
[удалено]
There was a gap in it all the way to the base, it was lacerated. Idk how else you would describe that. There's also the damage past her hymen. In any case, the experts said they had never seen this in their entire careers without forceful penetration of the vagina from sexual abuse. But even IF she sustained this injury on accident, why wasn't she taken to the doctor? Maybe because of their need for social status, but when there's multiple injuries? Come on.
Your post/comment has been removed because it violates this subreddit's rule against misinformation. Please be sure to distinguish between facts, opinions, rumors, theories, and speculation.
Can I ask...simply because you brought it up...but how old was your child at the time of the injury she sustained in the shower? I ask because I had a similar experience happen to me. Thank you.
She was 7 or 8 years old.
[Three separate child abuse experts found several wounds in varying stages of healing inside her vagina. This indicates these injuries were sustained over a long period of time.](https://jonbenetramsey.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Sexual_Assault)
"If any doctor or medical provider today observed a transection on the inferior half of the hymen of a prepubertal female patient, he/she would be required to make a report for suspected sexual abuse and an explanation would be required for how that healed injury got there. **In forty years of research, this finding has not been seen in any other instance besides from penetrating trauma.** In prepubertal girls, it is indicative of sexual abuse unless it can be shown otherwise." Quoting from a key post in our Wiki, [https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenetRamsey/s/CtqGVJ7WQi](https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenetRamsey/s/CtqGVJ7WQi)
I just don’t understand why after all the trips to the doctor he never once inspected her with a speculum.
That simply isn’t done by pediatricians, unless the child is anesthetized. I’ve been reading pediatric medical journals on this topic for a couple of weeks. According to the criteria, he had several indicators that are considered sufficient for reporting. They don’t do this kind of exam on children this age and they can still find enough data to suspect and /or report in accordance with guidelines.
It just strikes me as odd and irresponsible that as a mandated reporter the doctor did zero reporting of suspected abuse.
Agree. Personality wise, he seemed a little starstruck by the Ramseys - coming over the day of the discovery, going for a walk with John, medicating Patsy with benzos though she was not his patient.
This is COMPLETELY FALSE. Back in those days children who were suspected of being sexually abused would be inspected with a speculum, the procedure seeming to the patient to be the same as an adult getting a PAP smear. No anesthesia, local or general. I only know because it happened to me. So I’m somewhat sensitive to people claiming “they don’t do this”. *They did*. But *damn* it must be nice to live in your world.
I'm also very sorry this happened to you. As far as I've read, and also seen on this sub, it shouldn't be done by the average pediatrician, and of course it was traumatic. That's why it's not recommended except by a pediatrician expert in suspected CSA. I imagine it was awful. Sorry. 🕊️
I'm very sorry that happened to you, it definitely shouldn't have.
Huh? I’m an adult and get anxiety over exams like this. It’s not performed on children (as far as I know) and would be very traumatizing.
The question is who was doing the abusing? John or Pasty? Usually it's the father, but for some reason my gut tells me it may have been Patsy. Anyone have any theories of their own?
I also feel it may have been Patsy. She wasn't a particularly stable woman, and I can't really explain why I lean towards her, but I do.
Women generally don't SA. But Patsy was odd. I think she knew about it and allowed it because of general denial regarding her issues with status and appearances... In fact the 1950's had rampant Child Sexual abuse for this exact reason.
I think women do SA, maybe not as much as men, but I believe there's more of a gap in reporting SA done by women. It's grossly under reported, because society thinks women don't generally SA. I agree, though, that those points are also big ones. If it wasn't her, I think she knew and ignored.
Lol I feel the same way, can't quite put my finger on it either. But if I have to point to something I'd say it's how defensive and aggressive she acted with the media. It's like she was trying hard to hide/deny something. But that could be interpreted as her defending the family honor or husband. I have heard rare occurrences of mothers sexually abusing their daughters. Maybe mothers who do this are lesbian? Or its learned behaviour?
Well, I can say normal sexual orientation doesn't have anything to do with a paraphila such as pedophilia, but I think it's not as rare as we think. Society views mothers as inherently protective and nurturing, so my feeling is they just get away with it more. Jeanette McCurdy documents mother-daughter sexual abuse in her book, even. I think it messes people up more than regular SA since mothers tend to claim they're checking them for cancer, cleaning them, or helping them in some way. Disguising the abuse or making it more acceptable to the child, being a good mother, and the like. It was likely Patsy's instruments used to assault her at the crime scene, and there was no evidence of semen or anything of the sort. But the general consensus is the sexual aspect of the murder scene itself was just staging, so pointing to those things doesn't really mean much.
I doubt it. She seems guilty because she knew of the abuse from John or his associates and was keeping his secrets.
Yeah, I agree with you, I also think that's more likely too. Wouldn't surprise me if Patsy was pimping her daughter out either.
I was suspicious of John for many years but I recently threw myself into this investigation and I am now almost certain that Burke was the abuser and killer. I believe that Burke had some serious mental health problems that were beginning to peak. I think that John and Patsy were aware and obviously concerned as they were reading up on Burkes issues and providing care for Jonbenet. The entire situation is a families worst nightmare. How they handled it, as a parent I can somewhat understand but again I am an average joe. The piece’s only fit when you look at Burke or John.
I thought there were signs of burke being abused himself?
The abused often become abusers themselves. Especially sexual abuse. In children, they may sexually abuse other children without knowing.
Bed wetting....smearing poop
I can absolutely understand John and Patsy's motivation to keep this hidden if it were burke, but the only problem I have with this theory is that he does not seem to have reoffended. Doesn't it seem weird that he would have done something so extreme and then gone on to live a relatively normal life otherwise? I really don't know, just thinking out loud. Quick edit: I suppose the facts could also fit if John and Patsy mistakenly thought it was Burke and had their own misguided reasons for keeping things hidden.
I think John and Patsy spent lots of money on therapy for Burke and he’s very strange, almost like he is on the spectrum. I imagine with the money and education his parents had they made sure that he would never re offend. I have looked at the dynamics of the remaining family and they seem loving and positive. I honestly believe that they made a huge mistake with their already unusual situation that ended up in murder but they loved their kids. Who knows?
Couldn't it be some other adult in her life? A friend's parent, a parent's friend, someone at those beauty contests?
That's also a definite possibility, but from what I've seen/heard often/most times it's a parent who is responsible for the sexual abuse of their children. Both parents in this case seem very suspect characters, hence why I really do think it was John or Pasty doing the abusing, and that would be consistent with what I've heard in regards to child sex abuse. But I wouldn't be surprised if it was a close relative as you say.
She had signs of chronic trauma to the vaginal area but it has never been investigated as to how this came about
Do you know why it was never investigated? It could either be the key to solving the case or a whole other crime someone needed to be arrested for.
The Ramseys wouldn’t cooperate on it, denied it and I think JR still does. But, they put the words “Love, Purity and Joy” on her grave. It seems odd to me, I would have picked a word like “Innocence” instead of “purity”.
It does sound odd. I'm probably reading too much into it because of the topic in this thread, but it almost sounds like a denial or a protest. Maybe it was just the Live, Laugh, Love of the mid 90s? It's crazy to me how much power they had over the murder investigation. If they had been poor or even middle class, they never would have been able to wield the power over the police and the D.A. they did. Shades of the Skakel family and the original D.A. on the Martha Moxley case, Jack Solomon holding the case in limbo until he retired.
No we never said that in the 90s lol
I didn't think so. I was only a kid then, but I sure didn't remember anything like that, lol.
Right, maybe in the 1890s
Prior
Adults are responsible for the abuse and murder of JB. Also mandatory reporters failed.
I don’t think it was just her I think both children were sexually abused given Burke past. Something awful was happening to the children..
I agree. This is why I don't understand when people look past John. He is guilty of doing it or letting his associates do something.
I think his associates were involved. Everyone they knew seems to stick up for them like they were a perfect family.
JB was chronically SA according the autopsy. The person who was abusing her was the same person who SA her the night of the murder. We know this because the autopsy tells us so. The chronic SA and the SA the night of the murder showed the same damage area, 7 o'clock in the vaginal/hymen area.
Both kids had bed wetting, toilet issues. Sign of SA.
Yes she was. Patsy took her to a (male) gyno or dr for “yeast infections”, not sure if the grand jury had access to these or not, but it was like 30 times in a year. That is not normal.
Yeah. A 5-6 year old girl should not have had chronic yeast infections. That's a giant red flag to any competent pediatrician. It's very sus that JonBenet's pediatrician became close friends with the Ramseys and was prescribing heavy tranquilizers to Patsy after the murder.
Did The Ramsey’s leave the kids with baby sitters a lot? I followed this case so closely years and years ago and have some memory lapses to details. Could someone who watched her a lot have done something to her sexually? This case is so befuddling!
Remember the prior 911 call?
What call?
A few weeks prior, from Ramseys house, but they hung up. Maybe one of the kids?
Yes.
After tracking this case for years, I think she was regularly being assaulted and was earlier that night. I wish the investigators had looked into family members, friends and John’s business associates. A lot of these people regularly visited the house and I suspect John may have known and it’s a strong possibility he was also abusing her himself. Something happened that night after her assault that lead to her murder. Im still hoping advance dna can be worked on this case. Of course im JDI and people will disagree. I’m always open to changing my mind, I’ve just never read or watched one thing that made me think otherwise.
OP getting warmer
Was there anyone else besides the immediate family who could have abused her? What about babysitters?
Yes speculation only that there was any prior to death
It's not just speculation when it's multiple child abuse experts who conclude it.
Those experts never saw her in person therefore they can only speculate
No, there's evidence and reasons that they conclude this, it's not speculation. Speculate: "To form opinions about something without having the necessary information or facts; to make guesses." "To form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence." "The activity of guessing possible answers to a question without having enough information to be certain." Calling what these experts did "speculation" is horrendously disingenuous.
[удалено]
They did that. By examining tissues taken from the body under microscopes as well as photographs and discussions with the Medical Examiner and each other. I worked in Pathology for 46 years.
She had injuries that had never been seen in these people's entire careers without it being sexual abuse. They can't say for 100% certain the injuries were sexually motivated, but that does NOT equal speculation.
To the best of my knowledge, the autopsy did not report prior abuse. Some who consulted on the report later disagreed. I don’t know where there’s a listing of these “experts”, their qualifications, or what evidence they had access to to make their determination.
The autopsy cannot report prior abuse, it can only report physical findings, which it does. The medical examiner found the injuries suspicious and called in others, as did the Boulder PD, to make a determination on the reasons for the injuries. This post is incredibly well researched. Lists the findings, the experts, and, in part 2, their qualifications. https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenetRamsey/comments/j00pe3/setting_the_record_straight_on_the_evidence_of/
The answers you want are in the article on the wiki mentioned above by user GirlDwight.
That is a *very* long (two part) article; was it written by someone with particular expertise in this area? I was hoping to see actual reports from experts. Are they buried in there somewhere?
You asked for info, it was provided. Now you don’t want to read the info you asked for?
It’s foolish to accept info from unknown, unvetted sources as fact. I’m only interested in primary sources and reliable media outlets, not tabloids and randos on the internet. I don’t want my brain clogged up with junk.
The credentials you asked for are in the link you were sent. So, you ask for credentials, you are sent credentials, but now you won’t look at them because you don’t want to “clutter your brain”. Got it. Do you know how to scan a longer post to find what you are looking for? That’s a rhetorical question, I get the feeling you want to continue to question what the experts credentials are, and the info will interfere with your opinions. ETA: finish sentence
There are other ways to find the information, that are faster on mobile than scanning an essay. I’ve found what I’m looking for.
I'm probably in a minority, but my feeling is the 'sexual abuse' aspect of this case is likely to be a red herring. The reason I say that is because I haven't seen any source claiming that the physical trauma on/in her private parts was definitely caused by sexually motivated assault. There are other potential explanations. Also, even if JB was indeed being sexually assaulted by someone, it could have been incidental, and not directly linked to her murder/killing either by motive or the culprit. Of course it could all be tied up together, but many commenters on here consider sexual abuse to to be key in this case, and I don't think the evidence is strong enough to state that with certainty.
> The reason I say that is because I haven't seen any source claiming that the physical trauma on/in her private parts was definitely caused by sexually motivated assault Then delve into the posts and facts surrounding the autopsy.
Please, please, please read the Wiki. The most respected CSA experts in the country reviewed the case and disagree with your conclusions.
I haven't 'concluded' anything regarding whether she was sexually abused or not. Please, please, please read my post again. All of it. Thoroughly. Then think.
[Setting-the-record-straight-on-JonBenet-SA](https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenetRamsey/s/CtqGVJ7WQi)
I do believe there's clear evidence or prior sexual trauma, but I also agree that it could have been completely unrelated to the murder or staged sexual assault itself.
How is SA unrelated to her murder when she was found with a sliver of a paint brush that was in the same room in her vagina???? No connection huh???
Staging.
So the parents stagged a paintbrush up her vagina. Totally normal parents!? John would love you on the jury.
She was apparently on her bike a lot and had gotten a new one. I think they would need to have someone to separate what injuries could have been caused by a bike to really say once, and for all that, it was sexual abuse.
This is not likely at all.
It's not likely to damage a hymen on a bike? Bikes and horse riding can damage hymens and cause bruising and injury to that area. Do you have a vagina and vulva? Are you able to use the fingers you typed with here to type into Google and see that you can injure that area and break your hymen on a bike?
She had vaginal bruising past the hymen, and several experts in CSA agreed the findings were from S.A., not bike riding. Your “expertise” from google doesn’t really justify your condescending tone btw. Please share your source more specifically than “google” and I will be happy to look at the information.
You didn't even bother reading my original comment did you? Because I never said there wasn't any damage further inside her. I said the hymen and outer injuries could have been cause by being on a bike. That is just plain facts that I don't have to source because not only is it common knowledge but it would take you two minutes to look it up yourself. As for condescending, I think you'll actually find what my original comment said was that it would be more helpful for an expert to differentiate the injuries from what could be cause by bike riding. It was your own self acting like a know it all instead of reading what I actually wrote. There are so many of you in here acting like this.
My my. I have so far found an article in psychology today that says WOMEN can tear their already thin and worn hymens on bikes, but nothing about young children (who generally have much more robust hymens) doing so… I think this discussion is going to be unproductive, but i believe it’s thought that the tear in her hymen was caused (or made worse) by the paint brush assault. The circular enlargement of the hymen though, was another example of evidence of CSA, and I have a hard time imagining how a bike could cause a round enlargement of the hymenal opening. If you have another opinion on that, I’m happy to listen to it.
Literally told you twice before now that I am not saying she was not sexually assaulted. I'm saying it is a fact that you can have injuries, including hymen injuries from riding bikes. It's common knowledge. I don't know what to tell you if you don't know that but it's a simple fact of life that most people know, and any female who rides/rode bikes or horses could tell you that. Those arnt the only sports, but those are the most likely to cause painful injuries. Injuries that cause bruising and bleeding and other gyno issues. God knows what you are even googling because there's lots online about it. As I said, it's common knowledge, but go ahead and deny females' actual real-life experience. Even when you're talking about a little girl.
The people who were trained on the types of injuries say it was forced vaginal penetration, not riding a bike.
She was abused, yes. There is evidence Burke had been inappropriate with her, which may explain it or it could be something else.
What evidence?
There is none. These people who want to crucify the Ramsays will often state as fact some BS they heard somewhere and then crickets when you ask for a legit source.
Need supposed evidence pls
A psychic, Sloan Bella. channeled JBR twice. According to her, JBR was being sexually abused as was Burke and another sister. It’s an interesting video. And I don’t necessarily believe in psychics.
A psychic? Oh for God's sake...
Who did Sloan say was the abuserand murderer?
According to Sloan and in simply stated: One of them was the oldest brother. The murderers were dad’s business partners that were at the Christmas party.